High Court's campaign contribution ruling

Letters to the editor on this week's Supreme Court decision on campaign contributions, for April 5, 2014

Regarding the April 3 editorial “Court rightly says yes to more free speech,” the editorial board did not read the lead story in the April 3 Business section, “Remembering Keating and lessons unlearned” by Dan McSwain. His column clearly shows how favors are delivered to contributors.

Republican John McCain and Democrat Alan Cranston both lobbied for special treatment with regulators for Keating. If the editorial board does not believe that major campaign contributors do not get “governmental favors” from elected officials then they live in a dream world. All you have to do is look at the lobby industry and understand that money funneled to politicians results in favors. If this was not true, there would not be a major lobbying industry in the United States.

The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. Maybe the court should ensure that the playing field is level for all citizens when it comes to influencing our political leaders and everyone’s free speech is heard equally.

Jim Gandolfi

La Jolla

There’s one bright spot in the April 2 Supreme Court ruling (“Limits eased on political contributions,” April 3): education. Now our kids and grandkids will have to learn the spelling and meaning of “plutocracy,” because that’s the political system under which they’ll be living.

Walter Carlin

Del Mar

Regarding the April 3 editorial about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the provision of federal campaign law. The editorial board says the law restricted the free-speech rights of people to support as many candidates as they wanted. What percentage of the population can afford to spend that type of money on one candidate, let alone as many as they want? Again, another ruling in favor of the wealthy.

I thought the best way to support a candidate was to vote for them.

Gary Livengood

San Carlos

I agree with the April 2 Supreme Court decision removing restrictions on political contributions.

That however is not the principle problem. Perhaps the court did not change the law to what I’m about to address. If so, I agree with that. The change should be made by the Legislature. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that happening is zero.

We have allowed our representatives, at all levels of government, to create such a well-paid, plush, easy lifestyle for themselves, loaded with benefits and prestige, that their main daily concern is doing whatever it takes to guarantee that all that will continue uninterrupted. The whole system of government has been corrupted.

The real problem therefore is not how much money one can give, or whom they can give it to. The real problem is the money itself and therefore money must be taken out of the equation. Our citizens no longer have the morals or sense of patriotism that our founding fathers took for granted. We have permitted the creation of an entitled royalty in Washington and elsewhere.

All political contributions, of every nature, (cash, services, gifts, trips, etc.) must be banned, with long jail terms imposed upon violators. Yes there will be constitutional questions raised, but yes we must do this even if a constitutional amendment is required.

If you agree, please start saying so. Let’s get the ball rolling before the game is over and we have lost the greatest country and the best political system ever known to mankind. The hour is late.

Warren Ralph

San Diego

The Supreme Court has ushered in a new era of plutocratic control over America’s democratic process. Campaign finance laws enforcing the $123,000 contribution limit to federal candidates, parties and political action committees were struck down, permitting any wealthy donor to contribute more than $3.5 million to a single party’s candidates and committees.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee is another ruling in a series of decisions detrimental to what was once championed by American Democracy — equal opportunity for all to have a say in electoral process. This decision, compounded with the 2010 Citizens United ruling (which allows for unlimited financial support to PACs), has abolished decades-old protection against corruption or the appearance thereof. This decision will further encourage our elected representatives to push policies desired by their big donors rather than the people they represent. Aurash Gomroki

La Jolla

The Supreme Court ruling on political contributions was bad judgment. What the Supreme Court simple majority determined, which brought about the French Revolution, is now legally OK in the United States.

To use the old expression, “Power corrupts, certain power corrupts certainly,” in this case the wealthy can buy their representation in government to the exclusion of the rest of the public.